Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced the liberals' plan to restrict your Second Amendment rights. In addition to limiting handgun magazine capacities to just seven rounds, Feinstein and her leftist allies have identified more than 150 firearms they want to keep out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

But, as usual, there's a twist. The Washington Times reports that the "sweeping legislation" now before the Senate would EXEMPT "government officials."

Sen. Feinstein and liberal Democrats want to legislate away your Second Amendment rights, while refusing to subject themselves to the very law they want to put in place! It's the latest in their "What's good for the goose isn't good enough for the gander" approach to governing, which is simply unacceptable.

__________________

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens in Miami never happened!

My apologies, didn't mean to imply that you made those statements. But rather than the government, through their actions and apparent intentions are saying that.

I'm only pointing out that the government views a firearm as good security tool, even for the Pres and his family. Why do some people, including many government officials believe it's not a good security tool for me or the rest of the government's employers?

I don't know of anyone who has claimed guns are not good security tools. I believe without question they are, or at least they can be. That's not what's in question. What's in quesiton is whether all types of guns and features/accessories are appropriate for personal use by civilians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MP0WER

While i don't directly think that currently, i wouldn't be surprised if that protection was necessary in the very near future.

I don't understand your statement. Please help me out. What's the scenario you invision where you might need firearms for protection from the president?

Do you believe gun-related violence is a problem in this country? If so do you believe it is a solvable problem? If so how do you believe it can be solved?

Answering a question with a question isn't addressing the issue. There are a lot of people crying out for "solutions", I just need to understand how they articulate the issue and then see if the cure is mated to the solution.

I don't know of anyone who has claimed guns are not good security tools. I believe without question they are, or at least they can be. That's not what's in question. What's in quesiton is whether all types of guns and features/accessories are appropriate for personal use by civilians.

I don't understand your statement. Please help me out. What's the scenario you invision where you might need firearms for protection from the president?

Yes. All currently legal types of guns are appropriate for personal use. I don't see the need for any rifle magazine capacity being more than 30 rounds and don't see a need for any hand gun magazine being any larger than the grip of the hand gun it goes into. I think law abiding citizens would be on board with that.

2nd statement wasn't directed at you. But what i mean is i currently do not believe i have to physically fear the government coming to my house to enforce a law that for the past 200 years has not been a law. But i would not be surprised if this was a legitimate fear at some point during my life time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Do you believe gun-related violence is a problem in this country? If so do you believe it is a solvable problem? If so how do you believe it can be solved?

I would like to hear your opinion on how banning semi-automatic rifles and 30 round magazines are going to curb gun-related violence in this country.

I believe we have a violence problem in America. It fascinates people. It sells movie tickets, video games, TV commercial spots and many event tickets in this country. In a country with a violence problem, that has as many illegal and legal guns in it; violence from the muzzle of a firearm is inevitable. No one will argue that pulling a trigger isn't easier than driving a sharp object into someone or beating them with a blunt object or beating them with bare hands. So obviously, if guns DIDN' T EXIST there would be a portion of homicides reduced. Any by didn't exist, i mean anywhere, in the world; no cops, not military, etc... Because if there are guns somewhere there will be homicides committed with them.

Since violence is acted out in many other ways that exclude firearms i don't think it's a solvable problem. I do believe it can be reduced. In fact homicides, violent crimes as well as firearm related crimes have been decreasing over the past decade. I"m not going to go into how it can be reduced because it's been said by others as well as myself in this thread and several others.

Now this is where the point is and since it's be made several times perviously in this thread and others i'll ask you to read carefully....

Hand guns are responsible for more than 99% of firearm homicides in this country, "gun-related violence" as you said. Long guns (rifles and shotguns) are responsible for less than 1% of firearm homicides in this country. Why does the government seem intent on banning the weapons and accessories that are responsible for the least, less than 1%, amount of "gun-related violence" in this country?

And by all means, ask another question if you wish, but please answer ours as well.

__________________

-Joe

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat

Not saying you should choose to, I'm saying, in modern day 21st century, most people would end up having to do so anyways, not out of choice, even if the 2nd amendment grants you the ability to shoot back with your AR-15. See the scenarios Ive described above....

Ok - because you believe that they would be ineffective with almost no experience we should go ahead and just give them all up? Sounds good!

So 20 first graders in Newtown had their bodies completely riddled with bullets in less than 10 minutes by a hunting rifle?

How many shots were fired? At least a hundred? We'll say two hundred...

In 10 minutes, that same number of bullets can be shot with your typical 6 round revolver using quick loaders. Magazine capacity will not make a difference. Armed security in or just outside our schools will. Better mental health care will. More Gun control? Will not. These Gun controls are aimed at the people who are following the laws, not the ones who are commiting the crimes - the ones breaking he law. Criminals have already decided to break the law, do you honestly think that by making more gun laws that it will suddenly make them turn in those guns? The criminal will just see this as just more opportunities for him to try and get whatever he is after with less fear of someone protecting themselves against him.

These gun controls are illogical and will not work.

If I dual wield spoons and eat cartons upon cartons of ice cream... Is it the spoons fault for making me fat? Should we ban spoons? That's the kind of logic you are suggesting.

How many shots were fired? At least a hundred? We'll say two hundred...

In 10 minutes, that same number of bullets can be shot with your typical 6 round revolver using quick loaders. Magazine capacity will not make a difference. Armed security in or just outside our schools will. Better mental health care will. More Gun control? Will not. These Gun controls are aimed at the people who are following the laws, not the ones who are commiting the crimes - the ones breaking he law. Criminals have already decided to break the law, do you honestly think that by making more gun laws that it will suddenly make them turn in those guns? The criminal will just see this as just more opportunities for him to try and get whatever he is after with less fear of someone protecting themselves against him.

These gun controls are illogical and will not work.

If I dual wield spoons and eat cartons upon cartons of ice cream... Is it the spoons fault for making me fat? Should we ban spoons? That's the kind of logic you are suggesting.

How about tougher punishment for crimes committed with a firearm? What was this crap about the 3 strike rule with crimes committed with a firearm? Why 3 strikes? If someone uses a firearm to commit a crime, throw the effing book at them! If someone loans someone a gun and that person uses it to commit a crime, throw the effing book at both of them! If someone has a firearm stolen and does not report it stolen and that weapon is used in a crime, throw the effing book at the criminal and the person who didn't secure their weapon.

^^ THIS is where new legislation should start!!!!!!

Wanna know why? Because mass shootings account for a very small number of homicides compared to inner-city shootings. Inner-city shooters want to get away with the crime so punishment can be a deterrent. Mass shooters typically want to take people with them. So mass shootings are not something we're going to legislate out of our lives. Mass shootings can be reduced with better mental health care, proper up bringing of children and better security in schools.

__________________

-Joe

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat

Criminals are branded criminals for a reason, because they dont follow laws!! Why do people want to create more laws that criminals still arent going to follow and hurt good honest gun owners who follow the laws and dont commit crimes! All of this new legislation is to slowly disarm the public so that they can push their socialist agenda foreword and gain control over us with no chance of us rebelling when the time comes and everyone realizes its too late...

Every single gun in circulation today, started it's life as a legally sold weapon. (it's not like the gun makers have 2 distribution lines: Monday's production run as allocated to legal resellers, and Tuesday's production run is sold for cash out the back door of the factory to any gang member and no paper trail being kept).

So, any time a gun is used to commit any crime, one of 3 things has occurred:
1. A good guy loaned it to a bad guy.
2. A bad guy stole it from a good guy, probably aided by the fact that it wasnt secured properly.
3. A bad guy who has yet to be caught commiting a crime has completed the initial purchase legally, knowing full well it will be used for unlawful purposes.

In the first 2 cases, the bad guy only gets a gun because the good guy who was part of the initial legitimate ownership chain failed in some way. Maybe they were not trying to be an enabler, but they werent trying very hard to not be one either. That could be addressed by increasing the severity of punishment as per MPower's suggested changes.

The third case could perhaps be addressed by harder rules in some cases too, going to a 1-strike rule sounds good. Although as mentioned, mass shootings that end in suicide, well the threat of being punished after is irrelevant.

To commit a crime, you need motive, opportunity, and means. Fact is, legislating motive is impossible (unless you can invent some kind of mind control device to alter the feeling of others). Legislating opportunity is also hard, you cannot easily prevent someone from going to a certain part of town (where the target is) without basically incarcerating them, which is hard if you cant prove they have already committed a crime.

Legislating means is the only thing left.

Or, do nothing at all, which means that you think that it's just great that the murder rate in Toronto or Vancouver are a tiny fraction of American cities of similar size and cultural diversity, despite them both having a sizeable gang presence, being gateways into North America for overseas drug trafficing.

How many shots were fired? At least a hundred? We'll say two hundred...

In 10 minutes, that same number of bullets can be shot with your typical 6 round revolver using quick loaders. Magazine capacity will not make a difference. Armed security in or just outside our schools will. Better mental health care will. More Gun control? Will not. These Gun controls are aimed at the people who are following the laws, not the ones who are commiting the crimes - the ones breaking he law. Criminals have already decided to break the law, do you honestly think that by making more gun laws that it will suddenly make them turn in those guns? The criminal will just see this as just more opportunities for him to try and get whatever he is after with less fear of someone protecting themselves against him.

These gun controls are illogical and will not work.

If I dual wield spoons and eat cartons upon cartons of ice cream... Is it the spoons fault for making me fat? Should we ban spoons? That's the kind of logic you are suggesting.

Spot on ! I can change out mags in my glock at lightning speed (.40 cal). I live near the murder capitol of the U.S. with THE most stringent gun laws. Approximately 600 people murdered by guns (illegally owned btw) in 2012. I say let's ban cars since they kill more people than guns. Oh wait, we are now allowing illegal aliens to obtain a drivers license in the state. In addition, the city is closing a few Mental Health Facilities. Politicians...meh.

Every single gun in circulation today, started it's life as a legally sold weapon. (it's not like the gun makers have 2 distribution lines: Monday's production run as allocated to legal resellers, and Tuesday's production run is sold for cash out the back door of the factory to any gang member and no paper trail being kept).

So, any time a gun is used to commit any crime, one of 3 things has occurred:
1. A good guy loaned it to a bad guy.
2. A bad guy stole it from a good guy, probably aided by the fact that it wasnt secured properly.
3. A bad guy who has yet to be caught commiting a crime has completed the initial purchase legally, knowing full well it will be used for unlawful purposes.

In the first 2 cases, the bad guy only gets a gun because the good guy who was part of the initial legitimate ownership chain failed in some way. Maybe they were not trying to be an enabler, but they werent trying very hard to not be one either. That could be addressed by increasing the severity of punishment as per MPower's suggested changes.

The third case could perhaps be addressed by harder rules in some cases too, going to a 1-strike rule sounds good. Although as mentioned, mass shootings that end in suicide, well the threat of being punished after is irrelevant.

To commit a crime, you need motive, opportunity, and means. Fact is, legislating motive is impossible (unless you can invent some kind of mind control device to alter the feeling of others). Legislating opportunity is also hard, you cannot easily prevent someone from going to a certain part of town (where the target is) without basically incarcerating them, which is hard if you cant prove they have already committed a crime.

Legislating means is the only thing left.

Or, do nothing at all, which means that you think that it's just great that the murder rate in Toronto or Vancouver are a tiny fraction of American cities of similar size and cultural diversity, despite them both having a sizeable gang presence, being gateways into North America for overseas drug trafficing.

That's not entirely true. There are plenty of weapons smuggled into the country along with drugs and people.

The fact is it's very difficult to legislate prevention. By and large laws are made and the way they are enforced is by prosecution. Skip this mickey-mouse court crap and prosecute offenders to the fullest degree of the law.

So why aren't they legislating against the highest body count weapon; the hand gun? Why go after a weapon that is responsible for less than 1% of firearm homicides? No one seems to want to touch this question. My guess is that's because there can only be two reasons the government wants to rid the private sector of semi-automatic rifles with 30 round mags. (AR15s and AK47s)

1) In order to give half the population a false sense of security in hopes they feel safe.

2) In order to get the weapon platform that would be most effective for the private sector should we have to defend ourselves against an armed force.

I can't think of another logical reason but i'm open to theories.

__________________

-Joe

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat

That's not entirely true. There are plenty of weapons smuggled into the country along with drugs and people.

The fact is it's very difficult to legislate prevention. By and large laws are made and the way they are enforced is by prosecution. Skip this mickey-mouse court crap and prosecute offenders to the fullest degree of the law.

True enough, I should have added a 4th bullet point (no pun intended).

Of course, it must be pointed out that plenty of weapons and drugs are smuggled into Canada too (probably a big demand going north considering the more restrictive laws)

Despite that, the fact remains the body count is far less. Just because there is a leak at the perimieter doesnt mean it's not effective to limit supply into general circulation via other, initially legal, means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MP0WER

So why aren't they legislating against the highest body count weapon; the hand gun? Why go after a weapon that is responsible for less than 1% of firearm homicides? No one seems to want to touch this question. My guess is that's because there can only be two reasons the government wants to rid the private sector of semi-automatic rifles with 30 round mags. (AR15s and AK47s)

1) In order to give half the population a false sense of security in hopes they feel safe.

2) In order to get the weapon platform that would be most effective for the private sector should we have to defend ourselves against an armed force.

I can't think of another logical reason but i'm open to theories.

Well, I havent heard any logical justification for the rifle-oriented approach to restrictions, when handguns do harm more. Obviously I'm not privy to gov discussions behind closed doors.

I'm familiar with the theory that such a focus is part of the conspiracy to keep Joe Citizen less able to defend himself. However, the same type of people asserting that, are also quick to point out the Giffords shooting, Virginia Tech, and the Newtown shooting, were all done with handguns, not rifles. If I wanted to convince others that by taking my rifle, they gov is leaving me weaker than if they took my handgun, I wouldnt be pointing out how 1 person can effectively use handguns to kill dozens of people in a short time...

A logical explanation that I HAVE heard for the magazine restriction (independantly of whether it's a rifle or hand gun mag), is that in the Giffords shooting, he used a Glock 19 with a 30-round mag. Including 1 in the chamber, he got off 31 shots, and it was when he fumbled while ejecting the mag and trying to reload that he was tackled and stopped. These 31 rounds hit 19, killing 6. The supposition is that had he been limited to a 7 round mag, then he would have hit 7 max, not 19, and the fatality count could have been less. No guarantee of that of course, those 7 shots could have killed 7 instead of 6, and certainly there's no guarantee that he still would have fumbled the switch of a smaller, lighter mag as badly, creating an oppotunity to be tackled. But still, the theory is not totally devoid of logic, at least in that instance.

True enough, I should have added a 4th bullet point (no pun intended).

Of course, it must be pointed out that plenty of weapons and drugs are smuggled into Canada too (probably a big demand going north considering the more restrictive laws)

Despite that, the fact remains the body count is far less. Just because there is a leak at the perimieter doesnt mean it's not effective to limit supply into general circulation via other, initially legal, means.

I'm just saying that there is no data that supports your theory on where criminals get there weapons. However, even if your theory is correct, the starting point which doesn't infringe on law abiding citizens rights would be to tighten up the laws connecting the owners to the crime committed with their loaned or lost guns, not targeting the rifles of law abiding citizens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Well, I havent heard any logical justification for the rifle-oriented approach to restrictions, when handguns do harm more. Obviously I'm not privy to gov discussions behind closed doors.

I'm familiar with the theory that such a focus is part of the conspiracy to keep Joe Citizen less able to defend himself. However, the same type of people asserting that, are also quick to point out the Giffords shooting, Virginia Tech, and the Newtown shooting, were all done with handguns, not rifles. If I wanted to convince others that by taking my rifle, they gov is leaving me weaker than if they took my handgun, I wouldnt be pointing out how 1 person can effectively use handguns to kill dozens of people in a short time...

A logical explanation that I HAVE heard for the magazine restriction (independantly of whether it's a rifle or hand gun mag), is that in the Giffords shooting, he used a Glock 19 with a 30-round mag. Including 1 in the chamber, he got off 31 shots, and it was when he fumbled while ejecting the mag and trying to reload that he was tackled and stopped. These 31 rounds hit 19, killing 6. The supposition is that had he been limited to a 7 round mag, then he would have hit 7 max, not 19, and the fatality count could have been less. No guarantee of that of course, those 7 shots could have killed 7 instead of 6, and certainly there's no guarantee that he still would have fumbled the switch of a smaller, lighter mag as badly, creating an oppotunity to be tackled. But still, the theory is not totally devoid of logic, at least in that instance.

The argument that handguns can do the same damage as rifles is to point out that many things are capable of killing dozens in a short period of time. Imagine if the Aurora punk didn't want to be like his video game character and decided to really kill people. He could have used a hand full of simple bike locks to secure the theater doors and set the place on fire. Heck, in an accident in Brazil about 150 died in a club that caught fire. There are very efficient ways to kill people without the use of firearms.

The magazine argument does have logic at it's core. Although, crazy won't let a 7 round mag get in the way. Especially since millions upon millions of high capacity mags will be available via a criminal black market.

For arguments sake say Johnny goes out and buys a new hand gun that comes with a 7 round mag. He goes to the range and gets tired of reloading and purchases 4 more 7 round mags so he can preload them before going to the range. Now he's got 5 mags preloaded with 35 rounds of ammo. Every time he goes to the range he not only is honing his shooting skill but he is inadvertently or purposely gaining muscle memory and skill in changing mags. If this person has evil plans, he may be actually practicing mag changes. One could argue that a shooter's problem with changing that 30 round mag is because when he went shooting at the range he wasn't doing any mag changes. He loaded up a 30 round mag and shot it. Then he ejected the mag to reload the mag, not change from an empty to a full one.

I know many people with hand guns with 15 round mags and several people with hand guns with only 7-8 rounds. Those with 15 round mags typically own only 1, some times 2 if the pistol came with 2. Those with 7-8 round mags typically own multiple mags. I personally only load about 10 rounds per mag so i have to change mags more frequently as practice.

I just don't believe the restriction of magazines will make a difference. Criminals (those responsible for the majority of gun homicides) will continue to break the law and use high capacity mags. Those hell bent on taking people with them when they decide to commit suicide will practice mag changes to spite the system and people that have oppressed and ignored them.

Just my opinion of course.

__________________

-Joe

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat

How about tougher punishment for crimes committed with a firearm? What was this crap about the 3 strike rule with crimes committed with a firearm? Why 3 strikes? If someone uses a firearm to commit a crime, throw the effing book at them! If someone loans someone a gun and that person uses it to commit a crime, throw the effing book at both of them! If someone has a firearm stolen and does not report it stolen and that weapon is used in a crime, throw the effing book at the criminal and the person who didn't secure their weapon.

^^ THIS is where new legislation should start!!!!!!

Wanna know why? Because mass shootings account for a very small number of homicides compared to inner-city shootings. Inner-city shooters want to get away with the crime so punishment can be a deterrent. Mass shooters typically want to take people with them. So mass shootings are not something we're going to legislate out of our lives. Mass shootings can be reduced with better mental health care, proper up bringing of children and better security in schools.

The only maybe slight problem I have is charging the gun owner if his gun is stolen. Gun safes can be broken into. A smaller gun safe can just be hauled away by two people and a dolley and then taken apart at another location.

I am definitely all for thowing the book at someone for committing a felony with a firearm.

True enough, I should have added a 4th bullet point (no pun intended).

Of course, it must be pointed out that plenty of weapons and drugs are smuggled into Canada too (probably a big demand going north considering the more restrictive laws)

Despite that, the fact remains the body count is far less. Just because there is a leak at the perimieter doesnt mean it's not effective to limit supply into general circulation via other, initially legal, means.

Well, I havent heard any logical justification for the rifle-oriented approach to restrictions, when handguns do harm more. Obviously I'm not privy to gov discussions behind closed doors.

I'm familiar with the theory that such a focus is part of the conspiracy to keep Joe Citizen less able to defend himself. However, the same type of people asserting that, are also quick to point out the Giffords shooting, Virginia Tech, and the Newtown shooting, were all done with handguns, not rifles. If I wanted to convince others that by taking my rifle, they gov is leaving me weaker than if they took my handgun, I wouldnt be pointing out how 1 person can effectively use handguns to kill dozens of people in a short time...

A logical explanation that I HAVE heard for the magazine restriction (independantly of whether it's a rifle or hand gun mag), is that in the Giffords shooting, he used a Glock 19 with a 30-round mag. Including 1 in the chamber, he got off 31 shots, and it was when he fumbled while ejecting the mag and trying to reload that he was tackled and stopped. These 31 rounds hit 19, killing 6. The supposition is that had he been limited to a 7 round mag, then he would have hit 7 max, not 19, and the fatality count could have been less. No guarantee of that of course, those 7 shots could have killed 7 instead of 6, and certainly there's no guarantee that he still would have fumbled the switch of a smaller, lighter mag as badly, creating an oppotunity to be tackled. But still, the theory is not totally devoid of logic, at least in that instance.

A 7, 10, or 15 round magazine is going to be easier to change than a 30 round mag in a glock 19, at least imo...

The only maybe slight problem I have is charging the gun owner if his gun is stolen. Gun safes can be broken into. A smaller gun safe can just be hauled away by two people and a dolley and then taken apart at another location.

I am definitely all for thowing the book at someone for committing a felony with a firearm.

you missed the if not reported stolen part. All just an attempt to have law abiding citizens tighten up their personal gun control by keep them secure.

__________________

-Joe

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat

I didn't take time to read all the comments, but I want to suggest to all the liberal ban-large capasity, AR style rifle, anti-gun people out there to take this ONE challege. Its SOOOO simple anyone can do this.
Take ANY AK-15 rifle with any special attachments and have it carry, heck make it, 500 rounds of ammo. Load it full and one in the chamber, take the safety off, set it on the dining room table of YOUR house. Sit in the same room with it for 2 hours, then go see if it ran off down the road and started killing people! I will GUARANTEE you with MY life, the gun never moved one inch! It never fired ONE round by itself!
This STUPID president and these IGNORANT liberal politicians have no clue about anything, much less what the 2nd amendment REALLY means. The 2nd amendment is there to protect the people to secure a FREE state and shall not be infringed. its there to protect people from their own government! If you don't beleive this then you still feel we should be part of England and a monarchy. Look at Hilter after he declared guns illegal to normal people, look at the crime rate in England after their gun bans.
Yes I live in Texas, I own guns(plural) I have a concealed handgun license, and carry a pistol all the time, and I dare Obama to tell me to give up my guns.

__________________

Lone Star Chapter BMWCCA HPDE Event Chair, Texas Trifecta Event Chair, & BMWCCA driving Instructor
"Racing is important to men who do it well, Racing is.... life, anything that happens before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen (Le Mans)

Answering a question with a question isn't addressing the issue. There are a lot of people crying out for "solutions", I just need to understand how they articulate the issue and then see if the cure is mated to the solution.

Sorry, I thought it was understood the solutions being sought are for the problem of gun violence in our society. My question to you was to find out if you agree with the premise that there is a problem in our society with gun violence. If you do then please tell how you articulate the issue and what you think the solutions are if any.

I would like to hear your opinion on how banning semi-automatic rifles and 30 round magazines are going to curb gun-related violence in this country.

I believe we have a violence problem in America. It fascinates people. It sells movie tickets, video games, TV commercial spots and many event tickets in this country. In a country with a violence problem, that has as many illegal and legal guns in it; violence from the muzzle of a firearm is inevitable. No one will argue that pulling a trigger isn't easier than driving a sharp object into someone or beating them with a blunt object or beating them with bare hands. So obviously, if guns DIDN' T EXIST there would be a portion of homicides reduced. Any by didn't exist, i mean anywhere, in the world; no cops, not military, etc... Because if there are guns somewhere there will be homicides committed with them.

Since violence is acted out in many other ways that exclude firearms i don't think it's a solvable problem. I do believe it can be reduced. In fact homicides, violent crimes as well as firearm related crimes have been decreasing over the past decade. I"m not going to go into how it can be reduced because it's been said by others as well as myself in this thread and several others.

Now this is where the point is and since it's be made several times perviously in this thread and others i'll ask you to read carefully....

Hand guns are responsible for more than 99% of firearm homicides in this country, "gun-related violence" as you said. Long guns (rifles and shotguns) are responsible for less than 1% of firearm homicides in this country. Why does the government seem intent on banning the weapons and accessories that are responsible for the least, less than 1%, amount of "gun-related violence" in this country?

And by all means, ask another question if you wish, but please answer ours as well.

I concur with your point that we live in a violent culture with all it's implications. I'll just add that it logically follows that places with more guns are likely to have more gun deaths.

To address your question; I believe the reason there is so much focus on automatic and semi-automatic firearms and large capacity magazines is because their potential for mass carnage is exponentially greater than that of handguns. They are almost exclusively the weapons of choice in mass shooting incidents. Mass shooting incidents attract intense media coverage for extended perioids of time and have a huge impact on the national psyche due to their horrific nature. Of course these tragedies also have a devistating and lasting impact on the local communities in which they occur. Though the number of homicides committed with these types of firearms and accessories may be less in real numbers than homicides committed with handguns, I would argue their impact on society is disproportionately greater when used in mass shootings, which in my opinion jusitfies the scrutiny.

I concur with your point that we live in a violent culture with all it's implications. I'll just add that it logically follows that places with more guns are likely to have more gun deaths.

To address your question; 1.I believe the reason there is so much focus on automatic and semi-automatic firearms and large capacity magazines is because their potential for mass carnage is exponentially greater than that of handguns.

2. They are almost exclusively the weapons of choice in mass shooting incidents.

3. Mass shooting incidents attract intense media coverage for extended perioids of time and have a huge impact on the national psyche due to their horrific nature. Of course these tragedies also have a devistating and lasting impact on the local communities in which they occur.

4. Though the number of homicides committed with these types of firearms and accessories may be less in real numbers than homicides committed with handguns, I would argue their impact on society is disproportionately greater when used in mass shootings, which in my opinion jusitfies the scrutiny.

EDIT: i forgot to address your comment about more guns = more gun deaths. Logic does point to that conclusion. However, when comparing deaths per gun there are 47 other countries who have FAR LESS guns than the US but do have a higher rate of homicides per gun than the US. So speculation alone is not conclusive.

1) Fully automatic weapons have not been used in any recorded mass shooting in the US. They are VERY difficult to obtain there by very scarce. If a rifle and hand gun shoot a projectile every time the trigger is pulled, why is there greater potential of "mass carnage" with rifles?

2) In mass shootings since 1983 to present time, there were 35 rifles used compared to 88 hand guns and 19 shotguns. If you're quick with math, you'll see that totals 142 weapons and quickly figure out that most mass shootings involve more than one weapon since there were 63 incidents. In fact, the most deadly mass shooting in the last 30 years, at Virginia Tech, where 33 were killed 23 were injured, was perpetrated with 2 hand guns.

As a side note i'd like to point out that in the last 30 years a total of .0000005% of the weapons in America were used in a mass shooting. OVER THE LAST THIRTY YEARS COMBINED.... it's actually .00000048% but when you're talking about 142 of the 300,000,000 million firearms in existence i figured i'd round up to give a pro gun control advocate's argument the edge.

3) This is true, we all know the media is always looking for the best angle, the most dirt, first story, all in an effort to gain ratings. It should not be a surprise that they sensationalize these tragic events for their benefit. I would argue that they are part of the problem by offering the potential of HUGE notoriety of a perpetrator in their death by taking several innocent people with them.

4) This is part of the problem as well. The public's refusal to recognize and accept the "real number" facts. This is due to politicians and media pushing their own agenda with propaganda against the weapons they don't like. Facts are facts. I get all my statistical data from pro gun control websites. I don't believe that gun owners would be giving so much push back if the facts said that every week someone with an AR-15 killed 25 people.

But those aren't the facts. The facts show that by and large, including mass shootings, the weapon to inflict the most harm is in fact a hand gun. In addition the facts show that the vast majority of gun-violence in America takes place in inner-citys, not college campuses, not movie theaters, not elementary schools, or malls etc... But rather run down, dark, drug infested inner-cities.

As stated before, the only reason the government would want to go after rifles more than hand guns is because: 1, they want to give half the population a false sense of security or 2, they want to disarm law abiding citizens for a separate agenda.

In my opinion this should scare all Americans. Our government is focusing on something that is minuscule part of the problem in order to sooth people and possibly to buy votes for their party. Or they are motivated strictly by their own agenda regardless of the facts. Either way, having a government that would do either of those things is not something i'm comfortable with. They clearly don't have my rights and interests at heart and a government that places the rights and interests of one sect above others is one that is way out of whack or self motivated.

__________________

-Joe

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat